- 'copyfraud' is a word that has been used in the academic literature to label 
overly broad or ambitious assertions of copyright (asserting copyright that 
doesn't or is unlikely to exist). See Jason Mazzone, Copyfraud 
- An assertion based on 'sweat of the brow' is much more questionable following 
the IceTV decision by the High Court. If it's just work/running the photo 
through the processor, then it's questionable whether such digitised photo is 
copyright-protected even in Australia. However, when such cases have been 
raised in the UK they have been based on 'extensive work' getting the 
photograph to faithfully reflect the original. We haven't had that case come to 
court in Australia; reasoning in IceTV suggests it may not hold up here 

Kimberlee Weatherall

-----Original Message-----
[] On Behalf Of John Vandenberg
Sent: Sunday, 8 November 2009 1:53 PM
To: Wikimedia-au
Subject: Re: [Wikimediaau-l] The A E "Bert" Roberts photograph collection

On Sat, Nov 7, 2009 at 10:11 AM, Craig Franklin <> wrote:
> Hi Peter,
> Unfortunately the physical objects that the collection is based upon (the 
> glass plate negatives) are in a locked cupboard somewhere in the QM 
> warehouse, so the possibility of getting our hands on them and making our own 
> copies are fairly remote.
> I've deliberately worded the info in the infobox to be slightly ambiguous - 
> QM *claim* copyright on the digitisation (much the same as the NPG in the 
> UK), but there has not been a legal case here in Australia to my knowledge or 
> the knowledge of QM's copyright people to confirm whether the "sweat of the 
> brow" doctrine would hold up in an Australian court.  We only say that QM 
> "assert" copyright over the digitisation, not that we recognise that 
> particular claim.  And because the digitisation part is then released under a 
> free, acceptable licence, the whole shebang is fine to go on Commons.

the template is here: [[commons:Template:QM_Infobox]]
watchlist it! ;-)

> The images are tagged PD because they are unquestionably PD in the United 
> States, which is what really matters in this case, but it's worth mentioning 
> that there is a possible bit of CC-BY-SA-3.0 in there just so that nobody in 
> Australia or the UK gets caught out.

A similar example of a claim like this is:

and the derivative

Legally we are better off having a CC image than a PD image - the
definition of the latter can change.

For cases like this, it would be nice to have a
CC-0-digitised-attribution license which requires attribution of the
digitiser, but does not assert copyright over it.

nice work Craig!

John Vandenberg

Wikimediaau-l mailing list

Wikimediaau-l mailing list

Reply via email to